What Iran Can Do for Mexico

In the wake of the alleged foiled iranian plan to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S., here comes Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, suggesting once again that Mexican drug cartels should be designated terrorist organizations. That was quick.

Ros-Lehtinen, who is not, how should we put it… “appreciated” in many Latin American circles, is far from the first to come up with this idea. But she was without a doubt very fast in using the opportunity to revive it, while everybody else seems more preoccupied with figuring out what to do about Iran.

Yesterday, the chairman spoke about “the threat posed by the narco-trafficking networks (…) as ready-made networks to facilitate and support other terrorist activities throughout the Hemisphere, including right here in the United States”.

There shouldn’t be much argument about whether the threat exists. However, it is debatable how appropriate and beneficial it would be to label the cartels as terrorist groups.

First of all, they don’t care. At all. It wouldn’t be comparable to designating a government agency or a political group as terrorist. These are not organizations that enjoy any sort of legitimacy anywhere, and they already operate in the shadows. Preventing them from doing legitimate business, trips, propaganda, or from establishing international connections won’t have any impact over their operations. Charging them with an extra crime will not stop them _there are sufficient laws around. The death penalty? They are in it to kill or die already.

 Second, Mexicans have a point when they say the connection between cartels and terrorists is being overblown. If the accusations are solid, they point more to the use of individual hitmen than to a pervasive organizational linkage. The supposed plotters wanted mercenaries, and the brutal Mexican cartel members just happened to be available.

 Third, cartels have few political objectives beyond getting politicians out of their way. They are not using violence to attain an ideological goal. What they want is to control the market. Its business. And, in that sense, as the Mexican based analyst Alejandro Schtulmann observed, these “criminal groups have no interest in upsetting the U.S.”. The terrorist label has little place here.

That being said, some good could come out of the discussion if the U.S. starts to worry a little bit more about the extent to which Mexican drug cartels operate in its territory. Few would go as far as Rick Perry, who said he would consider sending American troops to fight in Mexico (Mr. Perry, did you ask the Mexicans if they support that??). But more resources could come in handy.

Weapons to Bahrain

The Department of Defense’s timing is funny. It notified Congress about two weeks ago that it plans to go ahead with a US$ 53 millions weapons sale to Bahrain, including 44 Humvees, over 50 missiles and night vision technology.

Meanwhile, the administration continues to express its “concern” over the crackdown on protesters at the arab nation. Obama met with the royal family in the past months to press for reforms and investigations against abuses. The White House has classified the repression with terms like “mass arrest”, “brute force” and “violence”.

Human rights groups are already complaining about the incongruence. Now there is some State Department official telling the press that “the proposed sale would help Bahrain’s defense force develop its capabilities”, according to the Washington Post. He also said the purpose is to defend against external, not internal, threats.

Ah, then it is ok. Nevermind that they are putting doctors who treat injured protesters in jail.

The leverage the US has on Bahrain is complicated enough without shipping weapons to them at such a delicate time. Not only the island hosts the 5^th fleet and is considered important to contain Iranian influence and fight terrorism, but its rulers have been defiant of Washington for ages.

One could say that it is not Washington’s problem. But it is. Bahrain is an ally, and the US has a big stance over the future of its government.

Maybe the relationship between the two countries is so strained that you need to oil it a bit with a few Humvees. It is hard to believe the DoD would really need those US$ 53 million that bad.

Friends

All else equal, it’s harder to win a fight when the guy who can help you the most appears to want the other side to win.

I am not sure I agree with Caroline Glick

Caroline Glick, a columnist for the Jerusalem Post, believes one problem with the war or terror is that the US has been insufficiently aggressive in fighting it. In particular, she would like the US to expand its efforts to countries such as Iran, Lebanon, and Syria. Although she doesn’t directly call for US-led regime change in these countries, it seems to me that at a minimum she would like the US to do something to make these countries more unstable than they already are. After carefully considering her point of view, I have come to the conclusion that she is totally nuts. Let’s leave the merits of the policy aside (of which I think there are few) and look at the US record on regime change in the broader Middle East over the past decade. We have tried it in two countries, Afghanistan and Iraq, and the record is, to put it charitably, mixed at best.

Don’t get me wrong – I very pleased that Glick has such confidence in the US’s capacity to get other countries to govern as we wish they would through a policy of military aggression. The problem is that I find it really hard to believe that the world would be a safer place if the US provoked more instability in the Middle East. Perhaps in a future column Glick will outline why she thinks the US military would be more successful in Iran, Lebanon, and Syria than it has been in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan. Until that day comes, I hope that our joint chiefs of staff don’t read her work and think, “hmm…she’s got a point. Lemme run it by Obama.”

The Mexican Drug Dilemma

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Whatever the ultimate results of the War on Drugs, the drug abuse program of governments and private institutions will continue to help people who want to live drug-free lives.

Mexican president Felipe Calderón didn’t just have a gruesome reminder of the state of his drug war strategy when a gang attack against a Monterrey casino left over 50 dead last month, supposedly after the owner refused to pay extortions to drug cartels. He also had the dark perspectives of his party (PAN) for the 2012 elections rubbed in his face, less than a year before the country goes to the polls.

More than 40,000 were killed in violent incidents since he took office in 2006. While the body count continues to rise, it becomes increasingly obvious that PAN’s promises of redemption after taking over the presidency in 2000 failed. And it becomes increasingly likely that government will go back to the PRI‘s hands.

It shouldn’t be so difficult for the PRI, which dominated mexican politics for around 70 years in the 20th century, to get their style back in the corridors of power. They’ve remained strong in Congress and at the local level anyway.

Regardless of who wins, in 2012 and beyond Mexicans will have to deal with a controversial question: should they go back to some sort of truce with the drug cartels, in the name of stability? If indeed the PRI wins, comparisons with the scenario during the 1980′s and 1990′s, when they allegedly had deals with drug lords, might be more recurrent, particularly if the bloodshed increases.

The slaughter at Monterrey already spurred renewed discussions about a truce. The hawkish former president Vicente Fox (PAN) suggested they might not have an alternative but to cut a deal with drug bosses. Calderón and the PAN reacted with criticism, even passing a motion to censor Fox. And, for now, the PRI’s aspiring candidates were not seduced either.

It seems to some that Mexico is trying to be another Colombia, that had a military/police approach to its drug problem and lowered violence numbers in the long run (while creating other problems). But the wars of Mexico and Colombia are hardly comparable. Mexico does not have today the resources and US support that Colombia had. “Plan Colombia” had estimated US$ 6 billion pouring down their streets and actual American presence. Mexicans are lucky to count with part of the Merida Initiative, of US$ 1,4 billion for Latin America, plus some training, vehicles and equipment.

Not that there would be any appetite in Mexico right now for an increase in American interference in their war, although most support the help that Washington currently provides (link). And it is practically unconceivable that the American public could stomach more involvement abroad, be it financial or military.

From the perspective of a Brazilian who has noticed the difference in the streets of Sao Paulo whenever there is a truce with a drug gang, I wouldn’t discard that option without looking more deeply into it. It’s not as if this would undermine intelligence work and the effort to dismantle criminal organizations. But it can make life easier for people tired of violence. It’s just hard to say if it is ever worth it.